Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

statutory forced share

Read a random definition: original-package doctrine

A quick definition of statutory forced share:

A statutory forced share is a legal term that refers to the minimum percentage of a deceased spouse's estate that a surviving spouse or child is entitled to receive, even if they were disinherited in the will. This percentage is set by law and is also known as an elective share. It is usually an estate in fee simple, which means that the survivor has full ownership of the property. However, this share only applies to the property owned by the deceased spouse at the time of their death, and it can be defeated by inter vivos transfer.

A more thorough explanation:

Statutory forced share is a legal term used in wills and estates. It refers to the percentage of a deceased spouse's estate that a surviving spouse or child can choose to receive instead of what is stated in the will or if they are unjustly disinherited. This percentage is set by law and is also known as a forced share or statutory share.

For example, if a husband dies and leaves his entire estate to his children, his wife may be entitled to a statutory forced share of his estate, which could be 30% or more depending on the state's laws. This means that she can choose to receive 30% of the estate instead of what was left to her in the will.

It's important to note that the statutory forced share only applies to property owned by the deceased spouse at the time of their death. If the spouse had transferred ownership of their property before their death, the surviving spouse may not be entitled to a forced share.

Overall, the statutory forced share is a way to protect surviving spouses and children from being completely disinherited by their deceased loved ones.

statutory extortion | statutory foreclosure

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.